A California court has halted a state program allowing pesticide spraying at schools, organic farms and backyards across California because of inadequate public disclosure of the chemicals’ harms.

The California Department of Food and Agriculture’s statewide “pest management” program required no site-specific analysis of risks before the application of 79 pesticides, including some known to cause cancer and birth defects and to be highly toxic to bees, butterflies, fish and birds.

In a sweeping decision issued Monday, January 8, 2018, Judge Timothy M. Frawley ruled that the state agency failed to adequately review impacts or provide adequate notice of pesticide spraying. The agency also didn’t account for the full range of dangers caused by the program, including risks of contaminating water supplies and the cumulative danger of adding even more pesticides to the more than 150 million pounds of pesticides already being used in California each year.

“We are thrilled that the court has ruled that the state does not have free rein to use pesticides as a first resort and hope that this decision will inspire the Department of Food and Agriculture to move toward sustainable pest-management practices that honor the public’s desire to make protecting the health of our communities and food supply the top priority,” said Nan Wishner of the California Environmental Health Initiative.

“California has to now take reasonable, site-specific steps to curb the harms of pesticides to our water supplies and imperiled species like salmon,” said Jonathan Evans, environmental health legal director at the Center for Biological Diversity. “This ruling affirms that people should have a voice in which pesticides are used in their own neighborhoods.”

The court rejected the program’s provision allowing pesticide spraying anywhere in the state, anytime, without further environmental review or input from the public. The court also ruled that the California Department of Food and Agriculture relied on “unsupported assumptions and speculation” regarding the dangers of pesticides to bodies of water.

“It’s especially troubling that the state gave itself a blank check to spray people’s yards, exposing children and pets to a range of pesticides that can cause serious long-term problems for children, including cancer, asthma and IQ loss,” said Debbie Friedman, founder of MOMS Advocating Sustainability.

The ruling halts the program until the state develops a program that provides adequate notice and protection for the public. This decision also opens the door for the public to have an opportunity to learn about and comment on new pesticide treatments and treatment sites approved under the program, which could previously have been approved without public scrutiny or notice.

The state’s attorney told the court during the hearing that the Department of Food and Agriculture has already carried out more than 1,000 pesticide treatments since the program was approved in 2014.

“This ruling acknowledges that widespread spraying of neurotoxic chemicals across diverse areas of our state without adequately looking at immediate exposure problems for humans is bad enough, but also accounts for the impacts on our streams and lakes and the organisms that live there and that these waters often end up in our taps,” said Bill Allayaud, California director of government affairs for the Environmental Working Group.

The suit was brought by MOMS Advocating Sustainability, California Environmental Health Initiative, the City of Berkeley and eleven public-health, conservation and food-safety organizations: the Center for Biological Diversity, Environmental Working Group, Center for Food Safety, Pesticide Action Network North America, Center for Environmental Health, Environmental Action Committee of West Marin, Beyond Pesticides, Californians for Pesticide Reform and Safe Alternatives for our Forest Environment. The plaintiffs are represented by Sheppard, Mullin, Richter, and Hampton, along with ATA Law Group.

The Issue

Pest Environmental Impact Report

On December 24, 2014 the California Department of Food & Agriculture (CDFA) approved a statewide Pest Environmental Impact Report (PEIR). The PEIR provides advance approval for the state to spray pesticides in our communities and on our food when and where they want, for any insect they consider a threat, anywhere in the state, for years into the future, and the public’s ability to challenge these programs would be severely restricted or in many cases, completely eliminated.

Facts About the Pest Environmental Impact Report (PEIR)

– It threatens organic farming – Organic farms can be forced to spray non-organic pesticides. The PEIR states that these farmers can simply sell their crops as conventional produce.

– Threatens human health – The plan described in the PEIR relies on a list of 79 pesticides and other chemicals including substances linked to cancer, birth defects, miscarriages, and reproductive system impacts. The list of pesticides could be expanded at CDFA’s discretion.

– Threatens honeybees, aquatic life, birds & mammals – Many of the chemicals in the PEIR are known or suspected to be lethal to bees and other pollinators, fish and other aquatic life, birds, and mammals. Among the PEIR pesticides are several neonicotinoids, which are directly linked to the collapse of honeybee populations.

– Can impact schools – The PEIR states that “…Proposed Program activities may need to occur at or near existing or proposed school sites.” This could provide the state with unbridled authority to spray at schools.

– Fails to adequately analyze impacts from pesticides – The PEIR’s cursory analysis of the impacts of chemicals on health and the environment fails to answer many essential questions, including many impacts of pesticide exposure on:

infants, pregnant women, and other sensitive populations;

children whose schools and communities could be sprayed under the PEIR;

rivers, streams, and drinking water.

– Allows no public notice – CDFA can enlarge its program – adding new pesticides, new treatment areas, etc. — behind closed doors without public notice or comment.

How We Fought

We filed a lawsuit in the Alameda Superior Court on January 22, 2015. The lawsuit outlines numerous ways the spray plan violates state environmental laws, including failure to notify the public of future pesticide spraying and failure to analyze the impacts of the pesticides on human and environmental health, including harm to infants and contamination of drinking water. We are deeply grateful to our MOMAS Co-founder, Debbie Friedman and Nan Wisher, California Environmental Health Initiative, for assembling an extraordinary coalition of partners to fight this legal battle.

Our Position

MOMAS has been instrumental in spearheading the opposition to the PEIR.

We believe the pesticide-oriented approach to agriculture described in the PEIR is not based on current science, threatens human health and the health of critical pollinators, is burdensome to our farmers, weakens our agricultural system, and does not consider modern regenerative agricultural concepts that will make our agriculture more resilient to pests.

We support independent scientists who are working to develop a modernized, less toxic, more effective, and more economical approach to managing pests that is also less burdensome to our farmers.

What You Can Do to Help

PLEASE DONATE:Legal action is costly, and we need your help! Please donate any amount you can to protect our food, water, and our health!

How to Donate

1. By clicking on the DONATE NOW button on the top of the screen or
2. By check payable to Pesticide Action Network and specific ‘MOMS Advocating Sustainability’ on the check memo line. Mail your check to: 1005 Northgate Drive #180, San Rafael, CA 94903